Case Law Details

Case Name : In re Jewel Classic Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAR Haryana)
Appeal Number : Advance Ruling No. HAR/HAAR/R/2019-20/17
Date of Judgement/Order : 28/08/2020
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : AAR Haryana (83) Advance Rulings (1741)

In re Jewel Classic Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAR Haryana)

The applicant has preferred the application for seeking advance ruling on various issues but it has failed to frame any question. Instead of posing any question before the authority, the applicant has given a description of the activities undertaken by it. The applicant was also given personal hearing in on 17.12.2019 wherein Advocate, Sh. Manoj Mittal and C.A, Bhuvan Mittal appeared before the Authority, but even then there was lack of clarity on the framing of question(s) for Advance Ruling. Accordingly, the application was not admitted.

FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, HARYANA

Brief Facts:

1.1 The applicant, M/s Jewel Classic Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Karnal (NCR) owns and operate three separate units in form of hotels/party lawns in the name of

a. Hotel Jewels (54 Rooms). All below Rs. 7,500/- per room per day.

b. Hotel Noor Mahal (125 Rooms), Some are above Rs. 7,500/- per room per day.

c. Hazuri Bagh (Party and Banqueting Lawns) No Accommodation.

In these units, the applicant provides services of Short-term accommodation, restaurant services, bakery, gym, banquets and outdoor catering services. The applicant contends that vide notification No. 20/2019 Central Tax (Rate), dated 30th September, 2019 the Government has reduced tax on outdoor catering to 5%. Being not able to determine and also the manner of taxation under the GST Act under various notifications notified by the Government, the applicant has applied for this advance ruling.

2. Discussion:

2.1 The applicant has preferred the application for seeking advance ruling on various issues but it has failed to frame any question. Instead of posing any question before the authority, the applicant has given a description of the activities undertaken by it. The applicant was also given personal hearing in on 17.12.2019 wherein Advocate, Sh. Manoj Mittal and C.A, Bhuvan Mittal appeared before the Authority, but even then there was lack of clarity on the framing of question(s) for Advance Ruling. Accordingly, the application was not admitted.

3. Ruling:

3.1 The instant application for advance ruling is rejected under Section 98(2) of the CGST/HGST Act.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Goods and Services Tax

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

March 2021
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031